*1 555 I аffirm Appeals affirming vote to the Court insufficiency Maready of the claim for against dismissal of service. joins in this dissenting opinion.
Chief Justice BRANCH v. BEAL STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JOHN VINCENT 564A82 No. (Filed 1984) August 28 first-degree murder—sentencing phase—considering Law 135.8— de- Criminal aggravating offender an circumstance— fendant’s error by allowing jury prejudicial to con- The trial court committed error prior adjudication as a offender under the Alabama sider defendant’s “felony conviction” which could be considered Offender Act as a Youthful capital punishment aggravating an circumstance under the North Carolina 15A-2000(e)(3). statute. G.S. Meyer dissenting. Justice Copeland joins dissenting opinion. in this
Justice from the judgment APPEAL the defendant right Burroughs, Judge Robert M. by the Honorable sentence entered Session of the Superior the 13 Presiding, September at Court, murder in the his conviction of County, following LINCOLN 12 March 1984. in the Court Supreme first Heard degree. Haskell, General, Edmisten, F. Attorney L. Ralf Rufus General, the State. Attorney Assistant Kennedy, defendant-ap- and Richard L. Richard E. Jonas pellant.
FRYE, Justice. error re- assignments forward numerous brings
Defendant and one assignment of his trial phase the guilt-innocence lating his trial. After sentencing phase relating of error error, we assignments all the defendant’s carefully reviewing of his trial. phase guilt-innocence error in the prejudicial find no THE IN SUPREME COURT v. Beal *2 However, court committed the trial sentencing phase, the during defendant’s jury the to consider it allowed error when prejudicial the Alabama youthful offender under as a which could Offender Act Youthful the North Caro- circumstance under aggravating as an considered only the ag- Since this was statute. capital punishment lina jury, and was presented which circumstance gravating ag- of the jury’s finding support does not since the record court based its sentencing which the upon circumstance gravating death, must of death be over- sentence sentence in lieu there- imposed life imprisonment a sentence of turned and 15A-2000(d)(2). of. G.S. I. 1982, Friday, May 14 that on evidence disclosed The State’s seventeen, victim, and Sarah Lineber- Abernathy, age Jodie area of Lin- general around the riding were eighteen, ger, age colnton, Carolina, Abernathy’s 1979 brown Sunbird in Ms. North room, and a drugstore game at a local stopping After Pontiac. off Highway Trailer Park located women went to Gilbert’s young Abernathy could give 9:00 so that Ms. p.m., approximately at boyfriend pictures. some prom her Park, women young Trailer at Gilbert’s arrival
Upon where Ms. at the trailer taking place was party discovered lo- be. This trailer was boyfriend would Abernathy thought her Beal, brother. The the defendant’s the trailer of Pete cated beside his brother. visiting park was at the trailer defendant also were Abernathy Lineberger waiting and Ms. While Ms. Ms. who Abernathy’s boyfriend, Lineberger, Ms. the arrival of defendant, between standing to him while began to talk knew the conversation, defendant course of the During the the trailers. told defend- Lineberger him home. Ms. anyone if could take asked car; however, Abernathy said that Ms. not have a ant that she did Between buy gas. if he would her some take him home she would left the trailer Abernathy and defendant 10:00 Ms. p.m., 9:30 and car Abernathy driving was Abernathy’s Ms. in Ms. car. park side. sitting passenger on the defendant nine miles from Gilbert’s lived approximately Defendant ap- drive graveled the end of a in a trailer located at Park Trailer THE IN SUPREME COURT v. Beal (herein- of a mile off Public Road four-tenths Rural proximately RPR) Price, Community. in the Iron Station Jim after #1312 worked, lived on RPR #1312 on the same whom also are drive as defendant. No other residences located graveled drive. along this car, Mr. a dark
At 10:45 Price observed approximately p.m., out, brown, grav- maybe with down lights going bronze Mr. Although his home toward the defendant’s trailer. el drive car, stated identify Price he occupants could him. At about 11:15 on the side waved at person passenger car, Price which like the one had Mr. observed looked p.m., *3 earlier, trailer with seen from the direction of defendant’s coming only its on. parking lights 11:00 Wilma Hoff- p.m.,
On that same at night, approximately man, of mile from the lived on RPR about one-fourth a who #1312 trailer, her and other dog Price residence and defendant’s heard were at neighborhood barking. barking in The still dogs dogs the timе, her porch. Ms. went out on midnight. 12:00 At that Hoffman minutes, Ms. “an awful for a few Hoffman heard listening After “frightened sound” times which almost three four moaning The moaning to her. moaning death.” The sounded human [her] of the defendant’s sounds were from the direction coming general trailer. 1982, May hours of 15 Ms. Aber-
During early the morning Church nathy’s Philadelphia was on the side of parked car found Road, County, located paved approximately rural road Gaston keys ignition were in the 3.3 from defendant’s trailer. miles down. of the windows was rolled and one 1982, Stacy May Sergeant Robert During afternoon 15 County Police went see defend- Department of the Gaston billowing from trash ant at his trailer. He observed “smoke grate The barrel had a on can at the end of the trailer.” barrel with Defendant went Ser- top grate. of it and rock on top County Stacy Department Police where the Gaston geant Several scratches and were him. photographs several taken were on defendant’s arms. abrasions observed 1982, Sunday, May County Sheriff Harven 16 Lincoln On trailer. Sheriff deputies and several went Crouse 558 v. Beal
Crouse looked inside at the barrel the end of defendant’s trailer large removed a bone it. from Several bones small were also observed in the barrel. He saw a pair also of gloves lying on the ground near the barrel plastic and a which was jug about one- third full of kerosene. 1982, Wednesday, May
On bоdy, remains of a burned later identified that of Abernathy, Jodie were discovered searchers from approximately feet defendant’s trailer. The re- mains, were which sealed in were plastic, found washout cov- leaves, ered with pine plastic. needles and defendant,
Paul an Midgett, acquaintance of the testified that sometime between 12:00 midnight and 3:00 a.m. on a Friday May defendant telephoned him. Defendant said that a girl had given him a ride home he had gotten her to go into the trailer: wanted to get him little bit go and she wouldn’t “[H]e off,” for it.” She slapped just defendant. Defendant “went “[w]ent crazy.” hallway Defendant down knocked her and out door, door. When he knocked her out she hit her head on scared, rock or a block. Defendant her grabbed was her hair and hit her on it rock or again. Defendant told him he [the block] really scared and didn’t know what to do. He her in put trash poured barrel and on kerosene her and lit kerosene. She would not up burn completely and later he her pulled remains out *4 of the barrel and had “her stashed down at the trailer.” Midgett relayed also the above facts to his parents through a letter writ- ten while in prison, he was he gave and later a statement to the police. Hudson,
Dr. Page the Medical Chief Examiner for the State of North Carolina and an expert the field of forensic pathology, identified the remains being which were found as those of Ms. Ab- remains, ernathy. As a result of his examination of the Dr. Hud- son testified that he injuries. observed various skull He also area, observed a fracture the front forehead and a fracture bone of the deep face in the sinus Additionally, area. he area, observed to the damage teeth and the chin well as a frac- ture on the left and right side the lower jaw.
Dr. Hudson testified that death was caused “blunt force injury. beating.” Blunt force trauma to the head. A In his opinion, blow more than one was inflicted victim. Dr. upon the Hudson IN THE SUPREME COURT to kill victim. He identify was to the instrument used unable very and only something “very state that it was blunt could fail heavy.” Additionally, single Dr. Hudson did not believe that suffered the victim. injuriеs would have caused the The defendant in his own behalf. Defendant stated testified car, Abernathy’s the victim outside Ms. talking that were his After asking seven or feet from trailer. approximately eight someone, Lineberger dating was still de- her about whether Ms. her, you.” “What about response fendant stated he asked Abernathy anything, Ms. him that if he tried question, to this told him, him. slapped tell on and then she Defendant she would her, against he hit she around and fell spun stated that fell. after she Accord- again of the trailer. She did move steps defendant, Abernathy Ms. was dead. to ing Abernathy’s Ms. car drive around in Defendant then used to Eventually, he to for her. abandoned the car attempt get an aid home, arriving He checked midnight. and walked back at about if she was Defendant concluded that again the victim see alive. thereafter, Ms. Aber- Shortly placed was defendant she dead. body. removed the re- barrel her He nathy in the and burned woods his them near mains that would not burn hid trailer. evidence, jury found defendant the above upon
Based degree. of murder the first circumstance and hearing, aggravating At one sentencing The jury. were submitted mitigating several circumstances jury was submitted sole was, circumstance aggravating of a in- convicted previously had been “[t]he The person.” use threat violence volving the finding proffered support offense predicate ad- previous above circumstаnce aggravating Youthful Of- under the Alabama judication above-quoted jury found existence fender Act. circumstance, cir- any mitigating find and did not aggravating *5 that defendant jury recommended Subsequently, cumstances. death, accord- the trial court sentenced him be sentenced ingly. IN THE SUPREME COURT
II. in this dispositive issue case relates to the sentencing phase defendant’s trial. That issue presents following ques- by tion review this Court: Did the trial court commit preju- jury dicial error when it allowed the to consider prior youthful as a offender under the Alabama Youthful Offender Act as conviction which prior could be con- as an aggravating sidered circumstance under the North Carolina carefully capitаl punishment statute? After reviewing North statute, capital punishment Carolina especially G.S. 15A- § 2000(e)(3), the Alabama Youthful Offender Act and the cases Act, which have construed the we hold that the trial court com- by jury mitted error prejudicial allowing to consider defend- ant’s offender under the Alabama “felony Youthful Offender Act as a conviction.” State, In order to resolve this issue first in this impression carefully we have studied and examined the Alabama Youthful Of- Act, 15-19-7, fender Ala. 15-19-1 through Code and the cases §§ which have construed this Act. The of the Alabama portions^ Youthful Offender Act which are pertinent this case are Ala. 15-19-1, 15-19-6 and 15-19-7. Code These statutes respectively §§ as follows: provide 15-19-1 Investigatiоn by and examination court to deter- tried; mine how consent of minor to trial without
jury; arraignment offender. (a) A with a crime which was person charged committed minority in his was not disposed juvenile but court and subject which involves moral or is to a turpitude sentence of shall, and, year commitment for one or more if charged with may a lesser crime be investigated and examined court to determine whether he offender, should be tried as a
provided consents to such examination jury trial without a where trial jury would otherwise be available to him. If the defendant consents and the court so decides, no further action shall be taken on the indictment or information unless otherwise orderеd the court as pro- (b) vided subsection of this section. (b) examination, court, After such investigation discretion, in its direct the defendant be arraigned *6 IN THE SUPREME COURT youthful aas offender and no further action shall be taken on information; the indictment or or may the court decide that offender, youthful defendant shall not be a arraigned as whereupon the indictment or information shall be deemed filed. 15-19-6. Disposition upon adjudication.
§
(a) If a person adjudged offender and the underlying charge felony, is a the court shall:
(1) Suspend imposition or execution of sentence with or without probation;
(2) Place the on probation defendant for a period not years; exceed three (3) a finе as Impose law for provided the offense commitment; with or without or probation (4) Commit custody defendant board of for years corrections a term of three or a lesser term.
(b) Where a sentence of fine is not otherwise authorized law, then, in lieu or in any addition to disposi- section, tions authorized in may this the court impose fine $1,000.00. of not more than may fine court imposing authorize its payment installments.
(c) In on placing probation, the court shall direct he be placed supervision under of the ap- probation propriate agency.
(d) misdemeanor, If the underlying is a a person adjudged be given correctional treat- ment provided by law such misdemeanоr. determination; 15-19-7. Effect of open records not to public
inspection; exception. (a) No determination provisions made under this chapter any shall disqualify youth public office or public employment, any or operate right privilege forfeiture of make him ineligible to receive license granted pub- authority, lic and such determination shall not be deemed a v. Beal however, crime; he is subse- provided, if crime, quently convicted of *7 added.) (Emphasis shall be considered. offender
(b) other records The and fingerprints photographs to youthful open offender shall be adjudged of a a person however, may, in that the court public provided, inspection; discretion, records. inspection pаpers its the permit the to be statutory provisions procedures describe above Act, possible the the Alabama Youthful Offender employed under offender, ef- youthful as and the dispositions upon adjudication a youthful is a offender. fect of a determination that an individual the jury which was held after During sentencing hearing the the degree, of murder in the first had found defendant to that aggravating State establish circumstance attempted felony involving convicted of a previously “defendant had been 15A-2000(e)(3).In G.S. person.” the use or threat of violence circumstance, above-quoted aggravating its attempt prove youthful as a upon adjudication the State relied defendant’s prior Act. Over the ob- under the Alabama Youthful Offender offender defendant, trial court allowed the of counsel for jections jury to the certified copies State to introduce and read defendant, plea, his against subsequent indictment original his ad- upon of defendant’s case based resulting disposition of the sen- youthful a offender.1 At the conclusion judication as sole circumstance submitted hearing, aggravating tencing jury previously that had been and found “defendant to the or threat of violence felony involving of a the use convicted 15A-2000(e)(3). G.S. person.” allowing court erred contends that trial Defendant adjudication youthful as a to consider his jury as con- Youthful Offendеr Act under the Alabama 15A-2000(e)(3) capital of the North Carolina viction under G.S. language the express notes that punishment statute. Defendant purposes for which Alabama Youthful Of- 1. view the the reasons enacted, original nature of the we will not disclose the fender Act was adjudication youthful To do eventually offender. which led to defendant’s contrary Ala. express language contained in Code be otherwise would 15-19-7(b), youthful adjudged of- person provides that which the “record § open public inspection.” fender shall not be v. Beal 15-19-7(a) Ala. Code that provides an aas § offender “shall not be deemed a conviction of crime.”
The State contends that the trial cоurt properly allowed the jury to consider defendant’s prior adjudication of- conviction,” “felony fender aas relying upon portion of Ala. 15-19-7(a) Code which “if provides person adjudged [the crime, a youthful subsequently convicted the prior offender] offender shall be considered.” The State also contends that such a determination is an labeled “[w]hether adjudication or would seem to no make difference respect to the nature of the crime committed and subsequent consideration jury it should given upon pro- sentencing ceedings.” *8 15A-2000(e)
G.S. of the North capital punishment Carolina in provides, statute pertinent as part, follows: Aggravating Circumstances. —Aggravating circum- stances be which be considered shall limited to the following:
(3) The defendant been previously had of a convicted felony of involving the use or threat violence the person. 15A-2000(e)(3) This Court has interpreted G.S. as requiring proof that defendant had been convicted previously felony of in- the use volving or threat violence to the v. person. State Good- (1979). man, 1, 298 257 A N.C. S.E. 2d 569 or an indictment 23, is insufficient support finding of a Id. at 257 conviction. 584; Ell, 800, S.E. 2d at see also v. 196 Neb. 246 N.W. 594 2d (1976). The the Alabama purpose Youthful Offender Act has been stated as follows:
The Alabama Youthful Act was Offender conceived those who its purpose protecting fall within ambit from the stigma practical consequences fоr a conviction Accordingly, confidentiality a crime. the Act provides proceedings availability and in the of the offender’s regard adjudication. records with 564 559, 564, 360, 366, State, reh’g 317 2d v. 294 Ala. So.
Raines
(1975).
denied,
Ala.
294
767
case,
clearly
that defendant
instant
it was
established
In the
Court of Cal-
youthful offender in
Circuit
adjudicated
Therefore,
to be
County
February
questions
1984.
houn
prior adjudication
are whether
that
this Court
determined
it was properly
of a
and whether
a conviction
amounts
questions,
those
we are
deciding
in this case. In
considered
15-19-7(a) which
of Ala. Code
explicit
language
guided
§
youthful
of-
that an
pertinent part,
provides,
crime;
provided,
a conviction
fender “shall not
deemеd
crime,
however,
the prior
that
if he
convicted
subsequently
is
youthful
offender shall be considered.”
consistently
the deter-
Alabama courts have
held
is
a convic-
accused is a
offender
mination that
360,
559,
denied,
State,
reh’g
v.
294 Ala.
317 So. 2d
tion. Raines
State,
(1975);
App.,
v.
Ala.
So. 2d
In addressing the state’s it was contention that proper the trial court to consider adjudication prior youthful offender in the determining sentence to be appropriate imposed, court stated:
The State our calls attention to further found language youthful 15-19-7 which states that if offender “is subse- crime, quently convicted of prior adjudication youthful offender shall be considered.” We hold a prior that offender is properly considered determining the sentence to imposed statutory be within the for a range later crime for which the defendant has That been convicted. determination, however, same youthful not be offender conviction, considered prior felony contemplated by Act, Habitual so as to bring the within Offender the purview higher sentence Act. that categories added.) (Emphasis Thomas, Ala., Ex parte So. 2d at 1326.
We find the facts partе and circumstances of Ex Thomas to very similar to the facts circumstances of instant case. Therefore, we believe that the there reasoning applied which is equally applicable to instant case. We are also mindful Ex fact that Thomas is a parte highest decision of the court Alabama, whose duty interpret it is to the laws of state. so, decision, That being the Ex Thomas and more parte specifical- 15-19-7(a) court, ly Ala. interpretation given Code § very authority persuasive given which should be substantial weight this Court. We find no reasonable basis for distin- guishing between the use of a offender prior adjudica- felony tion to prove prior conviction under an habitual offender statute and use of
prove capital conviction under North Carolina Therefore, statute. hold that trial punishment we court com- *10 by mitted to prejudicial allowing jury error consider de- IN THE 566 SUPREME COURT Beal
State v. felony adjudication prior prior fendant’s to amount Such an does not conviction. conviction.
III. conclusion, was insuffi- In hold the State’s evidence we cir- jury of aggravating the submission to the support cient of a that “defendant had been convicted previously cumstance G.S. person.” the use or felony involving threat violence 15A-2000(e)(3). we sentence of Accordingly, overturn defendant’s See G.S. impose imprisonment. and a sentence of life death 15A-2000(d)(2). vacаted, Therefore, is below judgment is term of for the re- imprisonment sentenced defendant his life. Defendant entitled to credit for natural is mainder charges of these spent in confinement as a result previously time of this An amended commitment shall judgment. the date before Court, County, in Lincoln accordance Superior issued Jackson, 26, 305 v. S.E. 2d N.C. judgment. with this See (1983). all of of error carefully assignments We have reviewed of his guilt-innocence phase relating raised trial, Accordingly, we without we find find them be merit. phase defend- during guilt-innocence that no error occurred ant’s trial. Phase—no error.
Guilt-Innocence vacated; of life sentence sentence Sentencing Phase —death imposed. imprisonment MEYER dissenting.
Justice result reasoning I from both the dissent respectfully majority on issue of whether defendant’s reached Act was prop- under the Alabama Youthful Offender erly sentencing. considered defendant, years serving old and twenty then 1974 the Army, in an Alabama court law States pled
the United the use or threat of rape, involving a crime to a the Alabama court judgment person. violence to the follows: *11 by Action,
Youthful Offender Sentence Court. Denied
Probation )
State of Alabama ) vs. Y.O. #6684 Youthful Offender Action ) John Vincent Beal Charge: Rape Offender) Youthful Guilty Plea charged
Sentence and Denial of Probation.
This 4th day February, of 1975:
This Youthful Offender Action trial having commenced by the Court without Jury intervention of a and De- fendant having guilty, and the pled having Court adjudged and underly- Defendant Youthful Offender of and ing Rape having applied offense of Defendant for probation:
Comes now in the Defendant his own open prop- Court Williams, er person Attorney, and with Honorable H. Darden being by asked why Court if he had anything say the sentence law should not now pronounced upon says him “Nothing” passing before sentence the Court by determines examination of said Defendant and evi- other dence that said Defendant was trade “a occupation soldier, army of the United of is States America” and he (20) race, sex, (d/b; twenty the white years May male of age 1954) 11, and his condition is need dental physical “good, work.” considered,
It is ordered and adjudged Court that the Youthful be and he is sentenced im- hеreby prisonment custody the Director Board Corrections the State Alabama term three and, Court, years, as the Court punishment fixed denies hereby Probation. Bibb)
(Judge Wm. C. added.)
(Emphasis years Beal was re- sentenced three imprisonment offender, a thereby ceived the benefits of him to the afforded that status under entitling protections convicted, Alabama law. In 1982 same this THE IN SUPREME COURT v. Beal law, my degree murder. It is posi- court of of first North Carolina youth- afforded as a was earlier that whatever protections tion his subsequent a result were lost as ful offender murder. degree first *12 statutory provision we that would North have no Carolina guilty of of to the plea consideration
preclude his Fur- of offender stаtus. rape, irrespective of thermore, I of the Alabama Youthful Of- language believe that the statute, Act, and the law policy underlying that case fender the contrary to reached it dictate result that interpreting majority. Law.
I. North Carolina authority law affording is no under North Carolina There him he are afforded protections which contends the defendant in Act. Even the case of Alabama Youthful Offender under the (with exception drug of certain misdemeanor misdemeanors violations) juvenile in North adjudications delinquency, and of judge law allows the to consider the convictions Carolina adjudications. in provides, pertinent 15-223 that part, G.S. § age of records for first offеnders under the Expunction —(a) When- at the time of conviction of misdemeanor. of 18 years of 18 any yet age who has not attained the person ever any felony, convicted or previously has not been of violation, under the laws of other than traffic misdemeanor state, States, any the laws of this State or other the United of a misdemeanor other than guilty guilty to or pleads violation, he file court where petition traffic his from convicted for the misdemeanor expunction was than two petition record. The cannot be filed earlier criminal any period proba- of the conviction or years after date (b) later,.... court, tion, If after hear- whichever occurs good behavior had remained petitioner finds ing, misdemeanor, any felony or free conviction of and been violation, from the date of years for two than a traffic other petitioner question, of the misdemeanor conviction in years question, old at the time was restored, contempla- be in the person it that such shall order IN THE SUPREME COURT law, tion of the he occupied status before such arrest or person indictment or information. No whom such any order has been entered shall be held under thereafter any provision laws or otherwise perjury giving a false statement of his or reason failure to recite arrest, information, trial, indictment, or acknowledge such any or response inquiry made of him for purpose. The statute provides information in the file be disclosed judges purpose whether the offender ascertaining previously granted discharge. had been As the defendant case of 18 present age was over the committed,
when the offense was and the offense with which he was a charged felony—rape, he would not have been eligible to receive the benefits of G.S. 15-223 in North Carolina.
When our has legislature deemed it has appropriate, it pro- *13 vided for the blanket protections which this defendant argues should be afforded him. G.S. 90-96 for the provides expunction § of for records first offense misdemeanor contrоlled substance violations. That section specifically provides that
(a) conditions, . . . Upon fulfillment of the terms and discharge court shall such proceed- and dismiss the person ings against him. Discharge and dismissal this section under shall be without adjudication court of not be guilt and shall deemed a conviction for of this for purposes section or pur- of poses disqualifications or law imposed disabilities upon a crime im- including penalties additional for posed second convictions of subsequent this Article. 90-96, however, I in nothing read G.S. to suggest that these pro- § tections in afforded limited cases of first offense misdemeanor drug violations should extend to a rape conviction.
Finally, 7A-638 provides G.S. that: §
An juvenile is or commit- delinquent juvenile ment to the Division of Youth Services shall neither be any considered conviction of criminal offense nor juvenile any cause the to forfeit citizenship rights. Significantly, provision, this unlike the Alabama Youthful Of- Act, fender makes no for exception adjudica- consideration of the significance Also of sentencing subsequent purposes.
tion for from policy protecting with its consistent conviction, Alabama construing is that cases stigma may not adjudicated Act have held that one so Offender Youthful law adjudication. the fact of his North Carolina impeached be contrary. provides expunction G.S. 7A-676 is to the § G.S. juveniles adjudicated undisciplined. delinquеnt records 7A-677, however, provides that § (b) (a), criminal or subsection Notwithstanding the defendant and chooses juvenile case if delinquency and is called as a testify or if is not the defendant to witness, testify with respect juvenile may be ordered adjudicated delinquent. to whether he was 15-223(d), Furthermore, of G.S. provisions similar § in a criminal or testifying that “upon 7A-678 provides G.S. § may judge juvenile] required delinquency proceeding [the adjudicated delinquent.” that he disclose law, the North Carolina or Alabama Whether viewed under at clearly juvenile the time he in this case was fact, Youthful Offender In the Alabama the offense. committed 15-19-l(a). juveniles. excludes Ala. Code Act specifically legislature recognized, our has summary, although offenders, cases, first of- juveniles, youthful limited pro- to and afforded be entitled violations drug fenders records, an and that through expunction tections conviction, I find no not be considered a should delinquency majority’s conclusion authority support North Carolina *14 rape must be ig- to a of guilty of plea that this because he simply of a case phase capital sentencing in the nored in youthful of a offender protections afforded the status and Alabama. Law.
II. Alabama
15-19-7(a),
Act,
in
provides
Youthful Offender
The Alabama
§
youthful
a
offender “shall
as
that determination
part
pertinent
however,
crime;
that
of
provided,
a conviction
be deemed
if
crime,
as
adjudication
a
the prior
convicted
subsequently
is
of a
The term “convicted
shall be considered.”
youthful offender
a
phrase
but
is
broad
in the narrow sense
is not used
crime”
which would include
pleas
adjudications
of delin-
where
quency
felony.
the offense was a
I read this language crime,
if
mean that
a
is
subsequently convicted
a
his
prior adjudication
youthful
as a
offender must then be considered
in the sentencing for the
crime.
subsequent
The stated
purpose
the Alabama
Offender Act
Youthful
15-19-17(a)
this
supports
interpretation. Ala.
provides
Code
determination made under
of this
provisions
chapter
“[n]o
any
shall disqualify
youth for public office or public employment,
a
operate as
of any
forfeiture
or
right
privilege
make him in-
eligible
to receive
license granted
authority.” In
public
State,
360, 366,
559, 564,
Raines v.
294 Ala.
317 So. 2d
reh’g
denied,
(1975),
that a offender not be used Act, punishment to enhance under the Habitual see Ex Offender (Ala. Thomas, 1982), Parte 2d 1324 So. the Alabama court stated: Act purpose of Youthful Offender is to protect who
“those
fall
its
from
stigma
within
ambit
and practical
State,
consequences of a conviction for a
Raines
crime.”
v.
(1975).
360, 366,
clear, however,
294 Ala.
The court
then noted that under the
of a
offender’s
(involving impeachment
then at bar
case
confiden-
credibility)
policy
interest
protecting
“State’s
yield
public’s
tiality
youthful offender’s record must
to
of a
system.” Id.
judicial
to
of the
integrity
right
Thomas,
not
dispositive
Ex